If We're Going To Fix Copyright, We Need Much More Transparency
from the a-necessary-factor dept
Glyn already covered European Parliament Member (and the EU Parliament’s only Pirate Party representative) Julia Reda’s report on copyright reform in the EU. However, for Day 3 of Copyright Week — which is all about transparency, I wanted to focus on the other aspect of Reda’s release of her report: just how transparent she’s been. When we talk about transparency in copyright law, we’re often talking about the lack of such transparency, often via international trade negotiations, like ACTA, TPP and TAFTA/TTIP, in which backroom dealing is done by unelected bureaucrats. The public is kept out of the negotiating process entirely, while lobbyists have full access. Combine that with the revolving door between the negotiators and the lobbyists themselves, and it’s a recipe for non-transparent policy-making by which legacy industries get all the “gifts” they want.
Reda’s approach with her report on copyright shows that it doesn’t need to be that way. Along with the report, she detailed all of the 86 meeting requests she received from lobbyists regarding copyright (noting that the number went way up after she was appointed to write this report):

Most requests came from publishers, distributors, collective rights organizations, service providers and intermediaries (57% altogether), while it was more difficult to get directly to the group most often referred to in public debate: The authors. The results of the copyright consultation with many authors? responses demonstrate that the interests of collecting societies and individual authors can differ significantly.
The end result:
Meetings requested![]() |
Meetings taken![]() |

Filed Under: acta, copyright, copyright reform, julia reda, tafta, tpp, trade agreements, transparency, ttip, ustr
Comments on “If We're Going To Fix Copyright, We Need Much More Transparency”
But, but . . .
Fixing copyright is copyrighted. Therefore you cannot do it.
Transparency is just another for piracy since it would mean letting everyone see all the secrets.
Your friends at the RIAA and MPAA.
The only reason they sent it to Techdirt in that form is cause they know what they’re doing is wrong, but the legacy industries are paying so much coin they think they are untouchable.
Fair use
Are those documents shown under fair use?
If that’s really the only record of who showed up when to the USTR, I think it’s pretty clear that they have absolutely no interest in properly tracking just who’s been visiting them, likely for plausible deniability reasons.
‘Has Person X from Company/Lobby group Y ever visited us? Well I can’t seem to remember, and unfortunately the logs aren’t exactly the best for finding those things out, so I just can’t say for sure.’
Perhaps instead of pushing for copyright reform she should be schooling governments on how to be transparent?
Where “Purpose of Visit” is listed as “credit union,” “CU,” or “bank” does that mean they just stopped by to use an ATM in the building, or something along those lines? If so, we didn’t miss out on much by USTR’s reluctance to make this public. But of course they should still keep records and be transparent about substantive visits at least.
Re: Re:
I suspect that their records are shoddy not because they want to obfuscate, but because nobody has ever been interested in seeing them.
Re: Re: Re:
I can see this. At work I often enter buildings where I need to sign in and out of visitor logs like that, and the “purpose” field is almost always filled with some BS like that. You have to write something there, but you also want to get it done quickly, so people usually just have some stock abbreviation or one-word answer they put regardless of the actual purpose of the visit. I usually put “meeting”.
Copyright is “fixed.”